Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19801007 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HO[CKrL B. B. II L CD. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Harvey, Hunt, Tygre, Pardee and Anderson present. Also present were Vann, Vrchota and Smith from the Planning Office, Bob Edmundson and Bill Dunaway. Commissioner's Comments Lee Pardee informed the Commission that Hunt, Harvey and himself had met with Hans Cantrup, his associates and advisors, as well as Vrchota and Vann from the Planning Staff. Lee said the meeting was productive, with Hans indicating he had purchased the land required for his master plan and is now ready to lay his cards on the table. The net result of the meeting was that Vann was going to find out what happened to the TDR's. Lee stated Ashley indicated the P&Z had approved everything with a few minor changes and Ron Stock had done nothing in four months. Therefore, they will be revived and brought before this Commission for consideration. At the meeting there was also a discussion of how to structure handling something as large as this, and the general concensus was possibly an SPA or a PUD. Sunny Vann and Karen Smith of the Planning Office will be discussing this with the P&Z so that a recommendation can be made to Council on a procedural basis for the point by point decision - making. Welton Anderson made the comment that, occasionally, while riding around Aspen he observes properties whose plans have been approved by this Commission, only to find that the actual properties don't look anything like the original plans. Karen Smith said there have been changes made in some programs and approval has come through Council. She further stated that this is a fundamental issue that has surfaced with the Growth Management reviews. That is, there is a lag time between project application - p&Z review - project con- struction. During that lag time, there are times that applications/ plans are amended and there is nothing in the P&Z review that covers those kinds of architectural details. Welton said this is one pro- blem he has with the Growth Management Plan. Sunny Vann noted the difference in commercial projects - they have to go through HPC, where as residential projects mayor may not have to. Hedstrom said this will be a specific item for consideration when the GMP is under review. 1981 Commercial Growth Management Submissions Sunny Vann introduced the 1981 Commercial GMP Applications. There are three applications: 1. Ajax Mountain Associates Bldg. #2 2. Mill Street Station Mall 3. Park Place Bldg. Applications for the 1981 Commercial GMP quota total approximately 40,420 square feet, distributed in the following way: 1. Ajax Mountain Associates Bldg. #2 = 11,120 sq. ft. 2. Mill Street Station Mall = 20,500 sq, ft. 3. Park Place Bldg. = 8,800 sq. ft. In addition, the applicants are requesting exemptions from the Growth Management for a total of 5,982 square feet of employee housing. The available annual quota is limited to 24,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, provided, however, that the Commission at it's discretion may recommend to Council square footage in excess of the available quota be as much as 25%. In addition to this, approximately 33,076 of commercial sq. footage is available as a result of unallocated quotas in past years. 2,100 sq. ft. has expired from allocations that were given by council in previous years. Net result = 60,500 sq. ft. potential 1981 quota. In essence, Council is only required to allocate a total of 24,000 sq. ft., there is an option for the 6,000 bonus and they mayor may not utilize unused quotas from prior years. The P&Z can, if they wish, recommend to Council that portions of this unallocated quota be utilized this year to allow all three applicants to be constructive. However, Vann reminded the P&Z of several things. First, Aspen's recently adopted housing plan has identified commercial growth as the number one generator of new employee housing demand. Also, that while commercial growth in the C-l and C-C zone districts - those zones which are under GMP - has been quite small (approx. 2%). Whereas, commercial growth in other sectors of the city has been substantially higher (12% - 21%). In fact, since 1977, some 150,000 sq. ft. of commercial space has been added in Aspen, the bulk of this being outside the C-l and C-C zone districts. Vann stated that the GMP was intended to help balance commercial growth with housing demand in Aspen. This has not been the case. This year's request exceeds the base quota of 24,000 sq. ft. by approximately 16,500 sq. ft. The Planning Office is extremely con- cerned about the impact of allowing 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial space to come on line in one year. The Planning Office therefore recommends that P&Z include, with their scoring, a recommendation to Council that no additional quota over the base 24,000 sq. ft. be allocated. The Planning Office further recommends that the 4,719 sq. ft. (bonus-1981) be subtracted from prior years unallocated quota's. Perry Harvey attempted to clarify with Sunny Vann the Planning Office's recommendation. He asked if the recommendation stated there has been too much commercial growth outside of the C-C and C-l zone districts and the City's commercial growth is inconsistent with the purpose of the Growth Management Plan. Sunny said yes, most of the growth is outside of the zones governed by the GMP. Further, that this growth has created an imbalance between em- ployee housing and it's relationship to commercial growth. Perry asked what is the Planning Office's feeling about commercial growth expanding outside of the "corell area? Vano said there were two considerations: 1. Hold the rate of growth to 24,000 sq. ft. 2. Slow down the rate of commercial growth until the time employee housing starts to increase. In summary, Vann restated the two recommendations the Planning Office had to the P&Z. At this point he added a third. This being that the number 2 applicant could, through the use of phasing, utilize the remainder of the 24,000 sq. foot allocation. Lee Pardee suggested that the P&Z comment and agree upon how many square feet they will take and for what objective reasons. How many square feet can the City of Aspen absorb? Hedstrom suggested polling the commission to see if they want to comment on that quota and recommend to Council on that regard. Welton ~derson agreed with Lee as did Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt asked Vann what last years figures were. They were as follows: 1979 CC, Cl = 18,000 sq. ft. outside = 13,500 sq. ft. Since GMP CC, Cl = 35,800 Outside = 120,300. Lee asked of last years allocations, how many are underway? answer being only Phase I of Ajax. Lee though that was very important. Ashley Anderson stated that the 20% bonus is supposed to according to the Code, available as a reward for quality Hedstrom reminded the Commission that their current task was to consider and recommend on the amount of allowable for 1981. The be, projects. at hand buildout .#'- ~, ~ - ,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1980 Perry Harvey stated that he has no preference for that decision being made before or after reviewing the applicant's individual presentations. His confusion was in the philosophy of this whole thing. He thought it seemed the P&Z would be in a position to encourage development within the CC and Cl, because of the pressure relief on the surrounding (non-growth management controlled) zones. He asked Planning if they would rather have no growth or growth downtown where the commercial core is designated? Sunny said the Planning Office has encouraged commercial develop- ment since the beginning of the GMP. Allocations have been given, but construction hasn't begun. Aspen has, in ~act, experienced substantial growth outside the core. Planning cannot control this outside growth at the present time. Vann suggested keeping the allotment to the 24,000 sq. ft. recommended with possible bonus up to 25%. Perry said that this year's applicant's should not be penalized because there is a growth problem elsewhere in the City. Especially for the reason that their potential development is within the growth management zone area. Roger Hunt said it is purposeless to put people through the GMP process because the actual results are less than the projected allocations at this point. Obviously there has been a shortfall of the projected growth rate. Welton suggested for the sake of continuing that the P&Z set the 6,000 sq. ft. bonus limit. Hedstrom noted that this is only a recommendation to Council. Hunt moved to continue under the rules that have been laid down. ie. 24,000 sq. ft. with 6,000 sq. ft. for a beneficial project. Then, following that, if all applications of projects are worthy and would be beneficial to the City, P&Z mayor may not recommend the use of previous year's unallocated square footage. Hedstrom asked if this was agreeable with everyone? Sunny Vann had no further comments. Ajax Mountain Associates Bldg. #2 The first application presented was Ajax Mountain Association., Bldg. #2 Ashley Anderson represented Garfield and Hecht. Jack Lawler, architect. Ashley Anderson introduced the project with the following infor- mation: The location of the project is the N.W. corner of Durant Ave. and Hunter Street. This is an 18,000 sq. ft. parcel zoned CC - Commercial Core. Last year 13,500 sq. ft. FAR was approved and is now under construction as Bldg. #1. The proposed devel- opment program is for 11,120 sq. ft. additional commercial and 1,380 sq ~t. employee housing, for a total of 12,500 sq. ft. Note: no FAR bonus is requested. The total project, Bldg. #1 and #2, upon completion, will contain approximately 26,000 sq. ft. or 1,000 sq. ft. less than underlying zone FAR of 27,000 sq. feet. Of the 26,000 sq. ft. approximately 1,300 sq. ft. is for employee housing. Jack Lawler, the architect for the project went on to discuss the architectural design, site design, energy, amenities, visual impact, and trash & utilities access area. Ashley added that all of the utilities are already in Phase I, so there won't be any additional pressure on the city systems. Olof asked for questions from the Commission. Welton asked the following questions of Ashley: 1. How will this project control the excess solar heat gain? Lawler answered two ways; first the brick walls act as collector en mass. In addition there will be a blind system that allows four different modes of operation. Welton's second question was with pedestrian plaza's that are below grade - they just don't seem to work. How will people be drawn in form the sidewalks to make the commercial space workable? Lawler answered that the grade is only 5 feet fown, has easy access with the steps and ramp, and the lowest level shop windows are Mill Street Station Mall out at the surface of the building. Jasmine asked if there would be any problems with snow removal? Lawler said they see no problem since Aspen sub-surface drainage is so effective. Hedstrom asked for questions from the public. There were none. The second 1981 Commercial Growth Management Plan Submission was the Mill Street Station Mall. Representing the owners was Frank Woods with architect Tim Hagen. The location of the project is the S.W. corner of Mill and Hopkins Street. The parcel size is 18,000 sq. ft. in the CC - Commercial Core zone. Frank Woods introduced the projects background. Last spring this project was introduced to the HPC to ask them their feelings regarding tearing down the existing Mill Street Station. The HPC had mixed feelings about doing that because some people feel the Mill Street Station has historical importance to Aspen. Therefore, the developers decided to "revamp" the existing structure. Woods further stated that developers of Mill Street Station project met with two members of the design committee for the Wheeler Opera House and they indicated a desire to have a pedestrian link be- tween the two projects. The proposed development is for the 6,500 sq. ft. existing structure plus 20,500 sq. ft. additional commercial and 1,550 sq. ft. of employee housing. Note: Applicant wished to use 1,550 sq. ft. of available 9,000 sq. ft. (.5:1 FAR) bonus for employee housing with no increase in commercial sq. footage over underlying zone. Tim Hagen, architect for this project, stated that some of the elements they wanted to keep on the existing Mill St. Station. These include the low height, existing covered walkway and the concept of an interior mall with skylights. All of these have been incorporated into the new design. In addition the building will be faced with brick. He went on to discuss site design, energy, amenities, visual impact and trash & utility access. Hedstrom asked the Commission for questions. Roger Hunt stated that the service access to the building seemed to be inadequate. Also that it appears in the plan that all retail shops would have to serviced from the front, and the many restaurant deliveries would need the use of the elevator which appears the size of a customer elevator rather than a service elevator, and doesn't appear to stop at ground level. Hagen said it was the intention of this project to have an elevator that makes a stop at the alley level for deliveries. Olof asked for questions from the public. Gideon Kaufman said he represents the Berko's who own the property next door. Gideon stated that initially the Berko's were con- cerned because of the size of the proposed buildings. However, they met with the applicants on a number of occasions and with the HPC and worked out some of the concerns. For example, the building was moved back so the visual impact was less substantial. Also, snow removal procedure was agreed upon. At this point in time the Berko's are satisfied with the concessions and would, in fact, prefer this building be there to eliminate the open lot. Perry Harvey noted that this section of town has more of a local orientation than, for instance, the Little Nell area. Perry asked if the bookstore would be staying in the station and also, what other types of businesses and services would be housed in the station. Frank Woods replied that they were interested in renting the space to year around businesses that responded to community needs as opposed to "trinket shops". ".... - -, ~ , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM W C. f.HOECKEL O. O.Ill. CD. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1980 Park Place Development The third and final 1981 Growth Management Plan submission was from the Park Place Development Company. Representing the Park Place Bldg. were Don Fleisher, owner and Tom Wells, architect. The location of this project is between Aspen Leaf Sports and the Guido Meyer Building on the Cooper Street Mall in the CC - Com- mercial Core zone. The parcel size is approximately 5,916 sq. ft. Don Fleisher introduced the project as one that 1) would be used exclusively to house the Pitkin County Dry Goods and Unicorn Books, 2) employee housing. He said that during the project planning there were three important zoning features that they had to work around. First, the existing Wheeler Opera House viewplane, second the 25% open space requirement and third employee housing. In working with the planning department the applicant has gotten their support for the program that evolved, which is abandoning the open space requirement, including employee housing and only a minor penetration into the technical viewplane. The development program is for approximately 8,800 sq. ft. commercial and 3,032 sq. ft. employee housing. Note: All of the available .5:1 FAR bonus is earmarked for employee housing. Additional review requirements include a special review to utilize the FAR bonus, to waive employee parking requirements and exempt employee units from GMP. Also, mandatory PUD to allow encroach- ment into view plane and to waive open space requirement. The applicant proceeded to discuss architectural design, site design, energy, amenities, visual impact and trash and utility access areas. Hedstrom asked for comments from the Commission. Roger Hunt said he was disturbed with the proposed front. He felt possibly people coming out of the proposed building would be "thrust" out into the Mall. Don answered that it would be an improvement over the existing walkway. Hunt also expressed the idea that the roof area in the front would make an excellent patio area if the front windows were doors instead. Hedstrom asked for questions from the public. There were none, therefore closing the public hearing. Fisher Exemption from Mandatory PUD Sunny Vann, Planning Office, introduced the Fisher Mandatory PUD Exemption. The application requests exemption from the mandatory PUD requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code for the construction of a duplex on Lot 6 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision. The lot totals approximately 22,669 sq. ft. and is located at the end of Park Circle at the base of Smuggler Mtn. The zoning is R-15, mandatory PUD. The proposed development is located in excess of 150 feet below the 8040 foot elevation and is there- fore exempt from compliance with 8040 Greenline review. The Planning Office and Engineering Department have reviewed the applicant's request for an exemption from mandatory PUD, and their comments are as follows: 1. Slope reduction calculations result is sufficient square footage to permit construction of a duplex on the lot. 2. Utilities exist to service the proposed development. 3. Soil test results indicate that the site is suitable for construstion of the proposed duplex. 4. Existing access is utilized to minimize site disruption. 5. The proposed structure appears to comply with all area bulk requirements of the R-15 zone district. Ulrych Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay 6. Sufficient access to the property is available from Park Circle to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. 7. Project is located in such a manner that should Park Circle be extended, there should be no conflict involved. In view of the above, both the Engineering Dept. and the Planning Office recommend that the applicant's request for exemption from mandatory PUD be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicant is willing to enter into a sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement district in the event one is formed. 2. The revision and resubmission of the applicant's site plan to include a parking arrangement that requires only one driveway when future curb and gutter are constructed. 3. No structure being constructed within thirty feet of the northeasterly property line in order to provide sufficient right- of-way in the event Park Circle is extended. 4. The applicant granting a 10-foot utility easement along the northeasterly property line for further water main extension. S. The submission and approval of a grading plan in sufficient detail to indicate the proposed cut and fill and the impact of drainage on the site. 6. The submission of a site plan to indicate the proposed revegetation in the event it is required. 7. The proposed structure otherwise complying with all area and bulk requirements of the R-lS zone. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicant's request for approval be conditioned upon the above conditions being satisfactorily met prior to issuance of a building permit. Hedstrom asked for questions. Perry Harvey asked John Fisher if all of the above conditions were okay with him. Fisher asked when some of these would take place. Vann said it would vary. Roger Hunt moved to exempt the Fisher project from mandatory PUD using the items #1-6, above (first group) and conditioned upon items #1-7, above (second group) and condition #8 being that all above are met prior to issuance of a building permit. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Welton Anderson excused himself from the remainder of the meeting at 7:20 p.m. due to illness. Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office, introduced the application for the Ulrych Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning. The location of the project is two lots at 71S E. Hopkins St. The subject lots currently have a single-family house and a small dome structure. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structures and to construct a free market duplex conforming to present zoning, plus three price restricted (moderate) studios. Exception to Growth Management allocations provisions for employee units is permitted (Section 24-10.2). The duplex is allowed. The following approvals are being requested simultaneously: 1. Subdivision exception because subdivision is required for multi-family dwellings, but this land is already developed, so the granting of an exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare. 2. Subdivision exception for condominiumization. 3. Special review to consider the appropriateness of the proposed employee units in terms of number, rental/sale rates, massing of buildings, etc. 4. Rezoning to O-Office/Residential Bonus Overlay (REO) zone to allow an increase in density when at least SO% of units are price restricted. - - ,.., - ,.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORilllO C.F,HOECKELB.B.ll l. CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1980 vrchota asked the P&Z to keep in mind that the REO was written carefully so that each case would be presented to P&Z and it would be discretionary whether a full bonus or some portion would be appropriate. She went on to state that the review criteria generally require that the proposed development is "appropriate for the neighborhood considering architectural design, bulk and density". Applications which meet the following requirements are preferred: 1. Compliance with any adopted housing plan. The Housing Task Force made several recommendations with which this application complies. It provides three studio units (450-500 sq. ft.) in the moderate category. Further, it disperses them in a small project which is close to central Aspen, and has easy access to utilities and public transit. 2. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. While the proposed structure itself fully uses its building envelope, it is in an area with numerous large office and multi- family residential buildings in all directions. On the same block several single-family houses have been expanded to multi-family. 3. Compatibility with underlying zoning. (Will be required to meet, currently doesn't). The project meets all area and bulk requirements for the 0- Office zone (including parking, where nine spaces are required) except that the fire escape intrudes on the five-foot setback. 4. Compliance with the intent of PUD. On a small lot where full coverage is proposed, no provision for clustering or provision of open space can be made. (Trade off of employee housing and open space). TbePlanning Office made the following recommendation: 1. Approval of subdivision exception (waiving conceptual approval before P&Z and preliminary plat before Council) subject to: a.The applicant designing the structure so that it does not protrude into the side yard setback. b.The applicant meeting the requirements for completion of plans and final plat subject to approval by the Engineering Dept. 2. Approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condo- miniumization conditioned on: a.Six-month lease restrictions on all units according to Section 20-22. b.Completion to the approval of the Engineering Dept. and recordation of a condominiumization plat prior to sale of uni ts. 3. Special review approval of the three studio units to be deed restricted under the City's moderate income price guidelines. 4. Approval of rezoning from O-Office to O/RBO, conditioned on all area and bulk requirements of the O-Office zone being met. 5. Exception from GMP for employee units. Olof asked for questions from the Commission. The Commission reviewed the site plan with Mr. Ulrych. Olof opened the public hearing. Olof read the two letters from the following people: 1) Mary Babic, 701 E. Hopkins St. is in opposition to this application. 2) W.R. Walton, 635 E. Hopkins is also in opposition to this application. Don Westerlind, 728 E. Hopkins was present at the public hearing and said he concurred with the above people's letters. He added that he thought there would be too much density with the three employee units. He expressed a problem with parking. He thought the duplex would be sufficient. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. GMP SCORES -1981 Lee said he would like to point out that there is no request for reduction in parking which is usually a request with an application like this. Also, that the same size building could be built, even if there were no employee units. Finally, in an area as critical as this,with 9 spaces for parking and 9 bedrooms he feels comfortable with this application. Perry noted the difference in the sq. footage would be 1,380 sq. ft. if the studios were not included. However, the bulk would remain the same. Olof expressed his concern about the objections of the neigh- borhood regarding the architectural bulk, density and design. Roger Hunt suggested a site inspection. Harvey added that the problem seems to be people density rather than building density. He added that he tends to agree with Lee for the reasons again of employee units and parking. Lee suggested that the Commission do make a site inspection. In fact, it would be a good idea as a matter of procedure. Olof asked for a motion to make these site inspections standard procedure. Lee so moved. All in favor. Roger seconded. No contrary. The motion was carried. The planning Office was ready with the scoring totals from the GMP 1981 submissions. They were as follows: Park Place Development with 31.23 points Ajax Mountain Associates with 31.04 points Mill St. Station with 30.66 points Park Place and Ajax Mountain would equal a total allotment of 19,920 sq. ft., leaving 4,080 sq. ft. of the 1981 quota. The Planning office recommends to give the first two projects the go ahead. The bonus is insufficient to allow approval of Mill St. Station, and no unused quota should be recommended for allocation. Olof asked for comments form the Commissioners. Lee asked if Mill St. would be able to phase, given the bonus? PH added he would be for helping the Mill St. Station for the quality of the project. Also, that the Commission should not restrict growth inside the core because there is a problem outside the core. Growth should be encouraged inside this core. Lee Pardee also recommended giving the Mill St. Station what they need for the beginning of their project. Lee moved that P&Z recommend to Council the results of the 1981 commercial scoring with the additional provision that the Commission finds the Mill St. Station to be a quality project, therefore recommend to utilize a 25% bonus. Also, instruct the Planning office to work with the applicant concerning possible phasing of the project. Roger Hunt said it should be indicated that to justify the use of a bonus that there are previous years unused allocations. Lee added that it is the consensus of the P&Z and the recent housing study that commercial structures have more impact on housing need and that this Commission is reluctant to dip into the previously unused conunercial allotments. However, we do recognize the quality and attractiveness of the Mill St. Station therefore recommend utilizing this year's 25% bonus. Perry Harvey seconded. Unanimously carried. Sunny asked for this additional motion: Reduce each years additional quota, so that it balances out over 5 years. Also, that last years bonus be subtracted from prior unallocated quota's so as to wipe out that balance. Jasmine seconded. Motion carried. Olof moved to adjourn. Roger seconded. The meetiw W~djourned at 8:10 P.M. "'--....."'... ...Jot'. 1-IIiI.___ _ t><<.nise P. Elzinga, [)~p. Ci+-t Cter-k. ,..... ."",""" - ....,I , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M \~ C. F. MOECKEL B. B. !!. L. CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnission October 7 , 1980 Olof Hedstran opened the meeting at noon with llHIlbers Pardee, Tygre, Hunt and Harvey. Also present were Vrchota and Smith fran the Planning office, Attorney's Gideon Kaufman and Bob Edmundson, and lastly Bill Dunaway fran the, Aspen Times. Condanin- iumization Regulations Karen Smith, Planning office, stated that this is a request for a reconmendation on condaniniumization regulations. The last discussion was July 29, 1980, at which time the Planning office presented several alternatives for addressing the pro- blan of loss of housing inventory through condaniniumization regulations and/or the rental overlay zone. Of those alter- natives the Planning and Zoning Comnission had felt none were preferred. The only concensus the P&Z expressed was that there was a loss of housing inventory, a problan that ought to be addressed . Karen said, she has, since that time met with the Board of Realtors and other groups to discuss the alternatives. The Board of Real tors recently established a coomi ttoo to review the several alternatives the P&Z was considering. They pre- ferred the present review systan to the new proposals, suggesting lIDre equitability and a mandatory review of the ordinances effectiveness and appropriateness within a 18 - 24 lIDnth period of time. Karen said the Planning staff has further discussed this and now offer the P&Z another proposal. The new proposal attacks the problan directly and s~ly. Each condaniniumization contributes to the solution of the problan. This approach offers the applicant flexibility in that it allows a choice in the type of contribution. The elements of the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1. Mandatory health/safety inspections for all units. 2. Review ordinances effectiveness and appropriateness in 18 lIDnths canparing results with progress in meeting the objectives of the Housing Action Plan. 3. Platting requirements review through the subdivision exception process. 4. (Applicant choices to mitigate housing loss) Comni ttment to mitigate housing loss, reviewed and approved by Housing Director and City Attorney with appeal to City Council. This procedure is intended to reduce the non- discretionary review load that P&Z has objected to. It 'MJuld apply to all cond.ominiumizations except for new (meaning, or new ownership for ownership period) construc_ tion and units which can derronstrate short tenn rental his- tory over the previous five years. Applicant shall make a corrmitment to mitigate housing loss through one of the following means, as chosen by applicant and derronstrated through written, recordable agreement: a.Fifty percent of units are deed restricted to employee price guidelines. b.Fifty percent or lIDre of the current tenants have agreed to purchase the units. c.Seventy percent of units will remain rental or occupied by owner/applicant. d.Applicant will pay each displaced tenant relocation assis- tance payments for one year. The annunt of same shall be the equivalent of twelve lIDnths rent and damage deposit, the lIDnthly rate based on the average of the last twelve lIDnths. {I'" , - The procedure for review \\Duld be a subdivision exception review, during which the other concerns (# 1-3 above) \\Duld be included. Karen said she personally feels rrore comfortable with this than with any of the other proposals that the Planning office has offered. She also said the Planning office needs a reconmen- dation from the P&Z today. Pardee questioned the rental rate proposed if the applicant choose 4(c) above as their choice. Karen said the \\Dreis, "rented wi thin the EmPloyee price guidelines" could be added to 4( c). Pardee added "will ranain ffiilloyee rental units". Hunt stated he had somewhat the same problan with 4(b). Karen suggested first discussing the acceptability of this approach and then, if acceptable, to discuss the specifics. Kaufman asked Smith if this proposal was written to include duplexes. Smith said yes, duplexes \\Duld be included under the theory that the duplex owner has an option as to which of the alternatives they choose to mitigate the loss problan. Kaufman \\Dndered how it oould benefit this proposal to include units that were so costly an ffiilloyee could never afford to rent one. Lee Pardee agreed, and suggested the detennination be based on the value of the unit in question.ie. unit value # of units. Following a lengthy, circular discussion Hedstrom suggested returning to the proposal at hand to discuss numbers 1-4 (above) individually, to detennine if they will oork. The O::mnission reviewed the proposed ordinances and agreed to accept numbers 1-3, as written. Proposed ordinance #4 (a-d) however, led to further lengthy discussion. Hedstrom rEminded the O::mnission that the purpose of the condaniniwnization regulation is to preserve ffiilloyee housing. With this purpose in mind, the question then being, which approach from the following is the \\Drkable approach: 1. Prohibition based on vacancy rate. 2. A quota. 3. Mandatory deed restriction of 5C1fo of all units conve;r:ted, 4. Rental preservation zone. Lee Pardee stated his objection to the vacancy limit trigger, He said there are a number of instances where condaniniwnization should be allowed because it doesn 1 t have any effect on ffiilloyee housing units. For example, there are, in town, units that have a value in excess of a million dollars. Obviously there is no way, even if you put half of the ffiilloyees in town together could they afford to rent one of these units. Pardee feels landowners should be allowed to condaniniwnize. However, the problem with this, as well as the existing ordinance, is the gray area between the non-EmPloyee and the ffiilloyee. Pardee agreed with Perry that the O::mnission should look at the ap- praisal approach. Pardee further added that the O::mnission should find a way of dividing the properties into t\ID groups i those tbat have previously been in the ffiilloyee inventory and those, for reasons of location and/or value, have not been, If this could be done, Lee \\Duld not have such strong objections to the vacancy rate trigger. Karen Smith stated that this \\Duld handle the equity problan, she agreed with the feasibility of the a]?praisal method and added that this is the first item of concensus in rronths of discussion. _~O..""'. -" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. ~OECI(EL B. B. &: L. co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Conrnission October 7, 1980 Roger Hwt raised the subject of the possibility of developing an anployee cooperative as a way of getting arowd this problan. He added he would favor this, assuming it maintains an anployee housing complex. Karen suggested Roger I s idea would involve adding an (e) to the 4a-d above, with the wording to the effect of, "anployee cooperative agrees to purchase". Hedstran wondered if, by means of assessed valuation, the properties that are not part of the anployee inventory could be eliminated fran this. Hedstran asked the manbers of the cowcil if they now felt that 4a-d above, with the addition of the aforementioned (e), would work. Pardee answered no, stating he felt people could find a way of getting arowd each of these if they chose to. Roger Hwt stated that he had nothing further to add. Gideon Kaufman said maybe this corrmission was spending alot of time on a subject City Cowcil would not at all be interested in. Lee Pardee suggested Karen ask cowcil. He said tell Cowcil P&Z had a meeting and the only way they sean to be able to confront the inequities of the condaniniumization policy is through a vacancy rate trigger. In other words, describe it to than and see what they think. JaEmine suggested the Conrnission set up guidelines in the event the vacancy trigger opens. Olof wondered when the gate is open, how does this work? Should it be according to how far the gate is opened on percentage points-as to how many condaniniumizations are permitted? Or will there be a fixed quota, variable quota? Hwt suggested the Ccmnission determine the number of wits allowed to be condaniniumized, set an application date and on that date have a lottery. Karen Smith said maybe the P&Z should look at a three year history of vacancy rates. She suggested that looking at only one year of vacancy rates could s:imply mean that there wasn't any snow in Aspen that year. Olof asked the Ccmnission if they thought the three year vacancy rate trigger was fair. There was agreanent aIlDng the Ccmnission that it was too long of a time period. Hwt suggested tha process could be set-up such that every year there is available 5<Yh of the previous year plus 5<Yh of the current year. In other \\Qrels, in effect, every decision would be spread over t\\Q years. Olof asked Karen Smith for her final corrment. Karen said she would take the issue to Coweil. She doubted they \\QuId give her yes or no answer and seemed sure they \\QuId request a joint meeting. Lee Pardee DDVed to adjourn. Jasnine Tygre seconded. The meeting adjourned at 2:00 P.M, -~~ OAl.l4..') . ~ise P. Elzinga Deputy City Clerk